clw_uk wrote:And when he talked about nagas, implied the world being flat with a big mountain in the middle, spirits in trees etc?

We now know the earth is round. On the other 2 we have no way of knowing either way.

Some forms of scepticism would say that we could not know the first either

Maybe I'm a tree in the matrix

On a serious note though, how does someone who uses a literal understanding of the other realms/beings etc in the suttas seperate the Nagas, tree spirits etc from "rebirth" and the hungry shade's, hell beings etc?

The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search. Sextus Empiricus

clw_uk wrote:On a serious note though, how does someone who uses a literal understanding of the other realms/beings etc in the suttas seperate the Nagas, tree spirits etc from "rebirth" and the hungry shade's, hell beings etc?

By being agnostic about all of it. There is really no need to adopt a position of belief / disbelief, it's all just opinion anyway.

clw_uk wrote:On a serious note though, how does someone who uses a literal understanding of the other realms/beings etc in the suttas seperate the Nagas, tree spirits etc from "rebirth" and the hungry shade's, hell beings etc?

By being agnostic about all of it. There is really no need to adopt a position of belief / disbelief, it's all just opinion anyway.

I agree

Thats twice in one day, we are on a roll lol

Personally I take a harder stance on nagas, tree spirits etc and personally think they were added later to give the suttas some flavour, as people back then seemed to be more impressed by supernatural tales etc. Also they don't help me in anyway in getting past dukkha and so I find them useless to believe in.

That being said if nagas were shown to exist, I'd have no issue. However the discovery wouldnt really change my life in any way or help me practice Dhamma, I would just be surprised.

Out of interest spinny, do you view the "psychic powers" the same way as well?

The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search. Sextus Empiricus

Shaswata_Panja wrote:This is the general refrain that I get from Western Buddhism/Consensus Buddhism...It is more interested in asserting that its practice is based on atheism and thereby engendering a worldview tinged with negativity , rather than asserting that its worldview bases itself off the very rich philosophy and metaphysics provided for by the Dhamma

What is wrong with atheism?

What is wrong with modern scientific "materialism" which gave you internet, computer and keyboard to type this on?

Why should we believe everything that ancient philosopher/s has said just because "it is ancient wisdom" ? I've read that despite being great thinkers, Aristotle and Plato believed that lungs produced wind to cool down the body. Or that in ancient world people didn't know about the brain and nervous system. In VsM it talks about that thoughts occur in the heart and by seeing the color of blood in heart cavity one can read the mind. . I do believe that there are lots of kernles of truth in VsM and suttas. But not everything. It seems that the Buddha or any religious prophet didn't teach something beyond the knowledge level of those times. Some take ancient prophecies seriously. But why none of them talk about ipods, iphones, internet, computers, democracy, submarines, electricity etc? Why does the future prophecies or account of past lives that happened millions of years ago seem to be too similar to India where the Buddha lived? Past names of former Buddha's seemed to be Indian and so were the circumstances....

We do not even have concrete proof that Buddha as historical person even existed, and if He did that he was fully awakened, and if the before is true that the suttas accurately passed down his teaching. I believe that we need to take into account the psychological teaching of modern realized masters such as Ajahn Chah, etc...

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

^^^^^^ your post is one of the best I have read here..I am not against atheism per se...I myself am more of a materialist atheist..it's just that W.Buddhism takes more inspiration from Materialist ateism than Hardcore Buddhadharma...but other than that...I am totally totally aree what you say.....Nobody.not even Buddha, can transcend his era...something along those lines was also said by the philosopher and later president Dr.Radhakrishnan----all spiritual leaders seemed to have been heavily limited by the geography and knowledge of their respective era...I find it incredulous to believe the historicity of the earlier Buddhas, given the time span involved.

Shaswata_Panja wrote:Nobody.not even Buddha, can transcend his era...something along those lines was also said by the philosopher and later president Dr.Radhakrishnan----all spiritual leaders seemed to have been heavily limited by the geography and knowledge of their respective era...I find it incredulous to believe the historicity of the earlier Buddhas, given the time span involved.

yeah! but veda can transcend all the eras, right? Gotta love the fundamentalists.

Shaswata_Panja wrote:Nobody.not even Buddha, can transcend his era...something along those lines was also said by the philosopher and later president Dr.Radhakrishnan----all spiritual leaders seemed to have been heavily limited by the geography and knowledge of their respective era...I find it incredulous to believe the historicity of the earlier Buddhas, given the time span involved.

yeah! but veda can transcend all the eras, right? Gotta love the fundamentalists.

when did I say that? who is talking about the Vedas? stop putting words in my mouth...and as if people who believe in the Vedas are fundementalists...I personally never learnt the Vedas as I never visited Gurukul, chanted Sanskrit or administered fire rituals

That is the usual Hindu nationalism cant. The history of the time of the Buddha is richer and more interesting and more difficult than what is claimed here. The Hinduism that arose after the death of the Buddha certainly adopted and adapted quite a bit from the Buddha's teachings, but there is also very much a history of working against Buddhism.

Hindus are least insecure, therefore they donot proselytize,,cant say that for other religions....you are trying to create a fight where there is none

Least insecure? That "least insecurity" certainly became manifest during the struggle for independence, much to Gandhi's horror and sorrow.

well You certainly cant make 340 million people act like realized Beings....The Direct Action Day was started by Jinnah and his thugs who proclaimed themselves Muslims....Hinduism rose from the Indus Valley Civilization and even earlier perhaps when men were monkey/ape-like hunter gatherers.....and every ideology that works itself out on the Earth plane, be it Communism,Islam,Hinduism,Buddhism----need a secure Geography for itself----its neither good or bad--its how things are....call it evolution if you will...see what Buddhists are doing against Muslims in Burma or against Hindus in Sri Lanka....I donot necessarily term it is bad or evil...i see it as unfortunate.....because every nation, race or ideology will protect its turf...which is not bad per se..what is bad is when Abrahamic religions through violence or surreptious means want to spread their ideology among other people---be it Norse and Germanic Pagans, or Thai Theravada Buddhists

Why more people of the West flock to Theravada compared to Mahayana or Vajrayana? simple because in Theravada the pure teachings of Buddha has been preserved without dilution with Confucianism/Taoism/Shintoism in case of Mahayana or Tantrism/Bon in case of Vajrayana..There are no other homegrown religions in Theravada countries to dilute the message

You see Theravada countries have had a secure Geography for themselves which Vajrayana or Mahyana hadn't

Buddha is one of our own...One of India's Brightest Sons.....Nobody can take Him away from us and say that we are not inheritors of Buddha's legacy...He walked around in my Neighbouring state...spoke the ancestor of my language....ate the same food that I enjoy...These give me goosebumps

In the West, Buddha is used as a decoration object in brothels, strip clubs and Alcohol bars.....That is ALSO an agenda against Buddhism, a Smear campaign

Last edited by Shaswata_Panja on Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That is the usual Hindu nationalism cant. The history of the time of the Buddha is richer and more interesting and more difficult than what is claimed here. The Hinduism that arose after the death of the Buddha certainly adopted and adapted quite a bit from the Buddha's teachings, but there is also very much a history of working against Buddhism.

Hindus are least insecure, therefore they donot proselytize,,cant say that for other religions....you are trying to create a fight where there is none

Least insecure? That "least insecurity" certainly became manifest during the struggle for independence, much to Gandhi's horror and sorrow.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

For those who are interested in a more accurate portrayal of Buddhism and Hinduism than given us by those who buy into Hindu nationalism, as has been quoted at length in this thread, see these two lengthy essays:

tiltbillings wrote:For those who are interested in a more accurate portrayal of Buddhism and Hinduism than given us by those who buy into Hindu nationalism, as has been quoted at length in this thread, see these two lengthy essays:

tiltbillings wrote:For those who are interested in a more accurate portrayal of Buddhism and Hinduism than given us by those who buy into Hindu nationalism, as has been quoted at length in this thread, see these two lengthy essays:

tiltbillings wrote:For those who are interested in a more accurate portrayal of Buddhism and Hinduism than given us by those who buy into Hindu nationalism, as has been quoted at length in this thread, see these two lengthy essays:

Sinhalese have a chip on the shoulder regarding Indians...especially N.Indians...dont understand why really

Lal Mani Joshi, the author of the essays I linked, was an Indian (not Sinhalese), and he was an internationally very well regard scholar.

He might be one of those closet cultural Marxists/Left-Liberals who want to do their bid to paint falsities and truths to destroy Hinduism ...(Look at his design to push all Upanishads post Buddha)

Says whether Upanishads are better philosophies than that of Buddha is a matter of personal opinion...but makes a bold unreferenced assertion that most philosophers hold Buddha's philosophy as higher than that of Upanishads